Katzman v. Ownahome Realty Co.

Katzman v. Ownahome Realty Co.

A memorandum signed by the seller's wife which describes her as the owner cannot be contradicted by parol evidence to prove she acted as agent for the husband; therefore the Statute of Frauds was not satisfied as to the husband and he is not bound to pay the commission; appeal allowed and action dismissed.

Citation
[1924] SCR 18
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Morris Katzman; Respondent/plaintiff: Ownahome Realty Co.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 December 1923
Procedural Posture
Contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; respondent's action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Parol Evidence Rule, Signature/authorization, Listing Agreements, Commission Entitlement, Ratification, Efficient Cause Doctrine
Source Language
English
Contract Property Evidence Agency Statute of Frauds Parol Evidence Rule Signature/authorization Listing Agreements +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Morris Katzman

Appellant/defendant

Ownahome Realty Co.

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a writing signed by seller's wife, describing her as owner, can be treated as a memorandum signed by the party to be charged when parol evidence alleges she acted as agent for husband
  2. 2 Whether parol evidence is admissible to contradict a written statement of ownership to establish agency
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's acts were the efficient cause of the sale entitling it to commission

Ratio Decidendi

A memorandum signed by the seller's wife which describes her as the owner cannot be contradicted by parol evidence to prove she acted as agent for the husband; therefore the Statute of Frauds was not satisfied as to the husband and he is not bound to pay the commission; appeal allowed and action dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; respondent's action dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs.
  • Respondent's action dismissed with costs.